I just got back from watching Matrix: Revolutions. I will speak nothing of it at such an early stage. However, I will say that I waited through the credits for my buddy's name and clapped, causing Japanese folks to look at me funny in the theater.
The particular theater I went to has assigned seating, which is pretty damned cool. No need to wait in lines and go hours before-hand to get good seats: I already had reserved seats in the center-middle of the house, ho-ho!
Now, speaking of revolutions and change, there's recently been a new presidential candidate guest-blogging down over at Professor Lessig's digs. Senator John Edwards'
latest entry says:
We need to get kids when they are young, and excite them about science. I will double funding for K-12 teacher training, and increase resources for science education. If we don't get the next generation interested in technology, we risk becoming technology followers, rather than leaders.
I'm a bit peeved by that. Here's what Ivan thinks:
You can preach to me all you want about the hygiene of fruit flies, but that doesn't mean I'll ever develop an interest in the kind of dung fruit flies feed on. Just because someone's exposed to science and engineering doesn't mean that person will fly (ho-ho) head over heels to learn more. People can't be motivated so easily. A good reason to "increase resources for science education" would be a case where there's a high demand for these resources but with short supply. Instead, his reasoning is that there's not enough demand, which, to me, sounds like backwards logic. Sure, we could teach teachers to use nifty mind control tricks (hey, it's possible), but why bother? Perhaps we can find out where the demand is and support those fields instead? People wanna do the things they wanna do, so just use that inertia and flow with it.
Perhaps the problem is choice
. WTF am I saying?!